WTF? Ezra Klein is blaming "old people" for deficit

[99th_Monkey]

Has Mr. Klein been swilling Tea Party KoolAid on the sly? This is disgusting.
The entire tone of this article is chillingly ageist and hugely misleading.

To try to cover his heartless ass, Klein even admits in the fine print at end of
article that rising health care costs ARE indeed a huge problem, after spending
the entire article torturing and tweaking data suggesting otherwise; i.e. laying
the blame squarely at the feet of US having "too many old people".


What does Mr. Klein suggest we do about having too many "old people"?
Either he's setting the stage for euthanizing everyone over 70, OR he's simply
blowing rainbows up the ass of the 1%, giving them cover for cutting SS and
Medicare benefits. Either way, it's a very ugly picture.

FUCK YOU EZRA KLEIN!!

PS - to see his graphs, you'll need to use the link, as they didn't copy/paste
with the text.

Our coming deficits are driven by old people, not health inflation
by Ezra Klein * March 20, 2013

You’ve heard — perhaps on this very blog! — that our long-term deficits are almost entirely driven by health-care costs. That’s true over the next 50, 60, 70 years, which is, absurdly, the time frame people often talk in. But over the next 20 years, it’s not quite right.

A more accurate way to put it would be that in the coming decades, new spending is almost entirely driven by health-care programs. But what’s really driving the spending in those programs is the aging of the population, not the rise in health-care costs. Over at the Concord Coalition’s blog, Joshua Gordon makes this point in an unusually clear way — by which I mean, of course, with graphs.

Here’s a breakdown of new spending by program between 2012 and 2037. As you can see, Medicare and Medicaid far outpace Social Security, and all programs that are not Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security are expected to shrink as a percentage of the economy:

There are two reasons health-care programs could be spending more. One is that health-care costs are going up. The other is that more people are using them. We typically talk about the problem as if the problem is rising costs. But over the next 20 years, the cost increases are driven by more people.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/20/our-coming-deficits-are-driven-by-old-people-not-health-inflation/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein&wpisrc=nl_wonk

[elleng]

1. What's wrong with this?

'A more accurate way to put it would be that in the coming decades, new spending is almost entirely driven by health-care programs. But what’s really driving the spending in those programs is the aging of the population,'

Not comfortable with facts, Monkey?

[frazzled]

3. And it means it is a temporary problem (in the long term view)

Yes, the baby boom generation, of which I am one, is bigger than previous and subsequent generations. It will be an added expense for a number of years (maybe 15 to 20?). But then the next generation will be somewhat smaller, so the costs will subside again (hopefully as the costs of delivering medical care also continue to decline).

[elleng]

4. I'm one, too.

[loyalsister]

8. But

The wars will inflate the numbers of the smaller generations who need healthcare. The VA can only do so much and will be overloaded, particularly with the number of head injuries.

[Cleita]

14. But thats why we had our FICA deduction raised

1977 by Jimmy Carter to put the money in the trust fund for baby boomers. I contributed to the fund until I retired in 2002 from that date and I'm not a baby boomer, but my money is supposed to be there for them. It's why the SS has 2.6 trillion in it. I honestly hate it when people arrive with half baked math.

[amandabeech]

33. Great post Cleita!

I'm a mid-boomer and I've been contributing to that trust fund, too.

Controlling ALL health care costs is the answer, not just trying to get people to die sooner.

[99th_Monkey]

6. no duh.

Yes we all know about the baby boomers coming of age, as this has been discussed
ad nauseum for decades. Which is one of the reasons this article sucks so hard..

What's wrong with Mr. Klein's article is this:
1) he acts like the Baby Boomer issue is some big "discovery" of his and his fancy charts,
2) regurgitating this factoid adds NOTHING to the discussion as to HOW TO FIX
the problem and
3) it engages in finger pointing at the elderly as "the problem", bordering on ageism.

It's nothing but a sickening display of arrogance, designed to provide "justification" for the
super-wealthy, i.e. to apply maximum pressure on politicians to aggressively bugger & begger
SS and Medicare.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. You're overreacting

Here's the key sentence in the column:
But if the problem is more people, then the answer, really, is higher taxes, lower benefits, more debt or some combination of the three.

He's telling us that the increase will be due to the Baby Boomers retiring, as we all know, and as you've pointed out that we all know. He's saying this as a counter to those who talk about healthcare costs rising as a function of procedures and salaries and so forth being more expensive. Klein is saying that no, it's the increased number of people who are contributing (obviously through no fault of their own) to deficit. So the key sentence above says that something has to give. This gives Republicans less wiggle room for their BS. This is not an attack on aging people...what on earth would be the point of writing something that slams the elderly for no discernible reason?

As to your points:

1. no, he's not acting as thought it's a discovery of his, complete with fancy charts. If you think he is, please point out where he's taking ownership of this "discovery".

2. sorry, but wrong. Note the part above about giving the Republicans less wiggle room. This column does serve a purpose.

3. there's nothing ageist about Ezra Klein's column. Again, if you think there is, please do post the relevant parts.

[99th_Monkey]

26. "deficits driven by old people" <-- sums up Klein's argument

Never mind the unpaid-for $2 Trillion Iraq war, or that Social Security has
absolutely nothing to do with the deficit, and is solvent for over a decade
already, or that Klein fails to even mention "raising the SS cap" as an option
for addressing any SS shortfalls, except to obliquely mention "raising taxes"
(but on whom? he doesn't say.) as an option.

Also medical costs -- by ANY measure -- in the USA are notoriously inflated,
compared to comparable care in other countries, many of which have a single
payer system. Why do you think it's become so fashionable for US Citizens to
go to other countries to get expensive surgeries?

You can swill down Mr. Klein's koolaid if you like, but it's not my cup of Tea.

[HiPointDem]

42. no. the problem is not driven by aging of the population.

[Generation_Why]

2. The baby boomers ARE the biggest strain on the deficit...

Everyone knows that is a fact.

The disagreement is with how we solve that problem.

I, for one, prefer lifting the SS cap and expanding Medicare to everyone.

[elleng]

5. Ditto, I prefer your suggested solutions.

[99th_Monkey]

7. I also agree with raising the cap

however, please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022547874#post6

[Cleita]

15. Your suggestion would really solve several issues but not because Social Security

is in the hole.

[HiPointDem]

43. no. they are not. and no, everyone doesn't 'know' that. only people who unquestioningly

lap up the propaganda 'believe'.

[cthulu2016]

9. There is a demographic BULGE

It is not just an upward trend, it is a bulge that will move through the sytem.

If an unusual lot of people were born in, say, 1953 then there would be an unusual number of 60 year olds today and an unusual number of 80 year olds 20 years from now, but will go down later.

Since there would be an unusual number of 80 year olds 20 years from now, the proportion of reired people to non-retired people will be higher, which drives up government spending. But if that proportion goes back the other direction ten years later then that pressure eases without any policy change.

Hw perhaps could have phrased it more diplomatically, but I don't see that he is blaming old people.

[99th_Monkey]

12. Please see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022547874#post6

as I think I would just be repeating myself to restate this post in other words
for you.

[99th_Monkey]

16. Every article like this, serves only to provide "cover" and seeming justification

for those working hard behind the curtain to "fix the deficit" by cutting benefits
for "too many old people" rather than raising the SS cap, or increasing taxes on
the super-rich.

[HiPointDem]

44. +1. and so many democrats eat it up.

[99th_Monkey]

45. Thanks for noticing

I was actually kind of shocked by some of the obtuse replies to my OP,
so thanks for weighing in.

[Brigid]

11. My deepest apologies . . .

For being born during the Baby Boom, Mr. Klein.

[99Forever]

17. No kidding.

Next time I'll try and schedule my life for a more convenient time for the 1%ers.

[Cleita]

19. I'm a pre-baby boomer but contributed to your Social Security 2/3 of my working life and I

was happy to do so. I hope this isn't an opening salvo to try to discredit the fact that the SS fund is in fine shape.

[Brigid]

21. *sniff sniff*

I think I smell the same rat you do.

[jeff47]

25. Might wanna actually read the article.

It doesn't say what the OP thinks it does.

[lpbk2713]

13. Yes ... old white rethuglicans.

Particularly those who were involved with the corrupt and evil BushCo Regime.

[reformist2]

18. Wow. It's not "old people" - it's a health care industry engaging in PRICE GOUGING!

Big Pharma, Big Hospitals, Big Nursing Homes, etc. all totally taking advantage of a system designed to help seniors. We need price controls.

[Cleita]

20. True. If we had gotten single payer or Medicare for all, it would have been possible to

concentrate on bringing down price gouging in the future.

[Brigid]

23. Quite true.

The "system" in place in this country to care for seniors is a disgrace.

[jeff47]

24. Actually, the entire point of this article is to show that it isn't.

It's not new price gouging.

It's more people getting gouged.

[reformist2]

27. He ignores the fact that prices are already at unacceptable levels. It invalidates anything else he

has to say about health care costs, as far as I am concerned.

[jeff47]

32. No, he doesn't ignore that at all.

It's just not the source of that new spending.

I think we can all agree that spending $20 for an aspirin is insane.

But the largest problem is we have a lot more people getting aspirins. Cutting the price to $1 won't fix that problem. There's still a lot more people who need aspirins.

[reformist2]

34. Unlike you, I think cutting the price of drugs by 90% will definitely fix the problem!

Ezra talks about price inflation going forward. He makes no mention of actually cutting prices, thereby tacitly accepting the current price level.

[jeff47]

39. Math. It's not on your side.

Cutting prices helps. But it will not solve the problem, because there's still a lot more people requiring treatment. Including lots and lots and lots of costs that are not prescription drugs.

[99th_Monkey]

29. I know. Klein tries to have it both ways, which obscures the truth

He points to having "too many old people" RATHER THAN HYPER-INFLATION
IN HEALTH CARE COSTS, as the culprit "DRIVING THE DEFICIT" ... but then admits
near the end of the article that "health-care costs are going up" to try to cover his
tracks, even though the freaking headline states that it's "not health inflation" that
is causing problems.

[WooWooWoo]

22. end-of-life care is a HUGE chunk of the overall health care system

and accounts for probably the greatest single contributor for overall healthcare costs.

[name not needed]

28. He's not blaming old people for anything.

The fact is, as more people enter these programs, there's a greater need for services and as a result it's going to cost more to pay for them.

[jeff47]

30. No, he really isn't.

He's saying that most new spending is coming from caring for the "demographic bulge" that is the baby boom.

Which benefits from being true.

You seem to take this to mean he's demanding cuts to benefits. Which isn't what he's demanding. He's pointing out that it's not new price gouging by doctors, or Social Security, or aid to the poor, or any of the other things people throw out as the cause.

[Lil Missy]

31. You'd better read the whole article.

He is saying new spending is almost entirely driven by health care costs. "Old people" require more health care than younger more healthy people.

Your interpretation is very slanted and inaccurate. Is that intentional? It's fun to stir shit, isn't it.

[99th_Monkey]

35. Whatever - i did read "the whole article"

I read it how I read it, and you don't agree with my interpretation.

So what? It's a free country ... we disagree, but it's still all good.

[redstatebluegirl]

36. I have to wonder if the young are saving enough

I met a 40 year old the other day at a fundraiser. We were talking and he told me MY generation was bankrupting his generation. I asked him how his saving for retirement was going. He admitted he had raided it twice. During our talk I found out he is working for a large compny, full benefits, kids in private school. He lives in a neighborhood I can only dream of and when we left he jumped into his S class Mercedes and drove off.

Now, can someone explain to me how my social security and medicare is bankrupting HIM??? I saved for retirement, the mess in 09 killed my accounts but wehave lived withinour means so we will be fine unless we have a catastrophic illness...

Those under 40 need to be very careful playing the age card here. Ageism isn't going to fly when you live in glass houses. I know it is tough for them but it wasn't easy when I graduated in 1978 from college. I worked for a while as a bartender to pay my bills and then the economy got a little better and I found a better job.

I am really tired of being blamed as a generation for all of the problems we currently see.

[99th_Monkey]

37. Thank you.

great story, illustrating my point exactly.

people read this shit, and it sinks in, that "old people" are somehow
the "problem".

apparently many on DU are just fine with that kind of accusatory ageist
rhetoric, which I find difficult to grok.

[McDiggy]

38. To be fair...

...the baby boomers were given the strongest economy in the history of the world and are leaving their children a piece of crap service economy that will likely only get worse. And their desire to keep the strong dollar policies intact to protect their collective nest eggs and stifling manufacturing doesn't help.

[sabrina 1]

40. Why is anyone surprised by anything Ezra Klein has to say? I've mentioned it before, but I remember

him when he started out, a boring 'commenter' mostly, who was always 'pragmatic', dull, not very pleasant and certainly not remarkable enough in his writing by any means, to have achieved the kind of notoriety he has. We, who knew him vaguely (he didn't really stand out as some other great bloggers did) were surprised to see HIM singled out of all the great bloggers and commenters who were worth reading, as a so-called spokesperson for the 'left'. I don't recall ever feeling he spoke for me. He was always a DLCer imo.

Since then the general consensus was that the was never just a commenter, but was being funded to blog by some think tank or other. Probably the DLC/Third Way.

So it would not surprise me at all to see him try to use, what he thinks are Democratic creds (sorry Ezra, some of us doubted them long ago) to influence cuts in SS. I wonder who is paying him? Always have.

[99th_Monkey]

41. Good to know

thanks Sabrina, as always for gracing my OP with your observations.